Skip to main content

Ability to Get Along With Co-Workers is an Essential Job Function Needed to Bring ADA Claim


Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc. - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Timothy Mayo ("Mayo") worked at PCC Structurals ("PCC") as a welder.  In 1999, Mayo was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and was on medication and treatment which allowed him to continue working incident free until 2010.  After Mayo felt he was being bullied by his supervisor, he told three different co-workers that he wanted to kill the supervisor.  Mayo told one co-worker that he felt like bringing a shot gun to work and "blowing off" the heads of the supervisor and another manager.  Mayo then told another co-worker that he wanted to "bring a gun down and start shooting people."  Not to stop there, Mayo even described the exact time of day he would shoot his supervisor when Mayo knew the supervisor would be around.

After the co-workers reported the threats to the employer, Mayo told an HR rep that he "couldn't guarantee" that he would not carry out the threats.  After PCC suspended Mayo and he was held in custody by the police for six days, Mayo went on FMLA leave for two months.  Mayo's psychologist and nurse cleared him to return to work and suggested that he be assigned to a different supervisor.  PCC instead chose to terminate Mayo.  

Mayo brought an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") claim against PCC on the grounds that his threats were the result of his major depressive disorder and PCC failed to accommodate him by following the suggestion of his doctor that Mayo be assigned to a different supervisor.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of PCC.

Holding:  The Ninth Circuit first looked at whether Mayo was a "qualified individual" under the ADA.  One of Mayo's essential job functions included the ability to handle stress and interact with others.  As the Court pointed out, threatening the lives of his co-workers "in chilling detail" on multiple occasions meant that Mayo could not appropriately handle stress and interact with others.  Consequently, Mayo could not perform one of the essential functions of his job and therefore was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA.

As for Mayo's requested accommodation, the Court noted that other circuits have held that employers cannot be forced to choose between accommodating a disability and creating an unsafe work environment for other employees.  If Mayo's accommodation had been granted, the Court stated that it "would not have changed his inappropriate response to stress - it would have just removed one potential stressor and possibly added another name to the hit list."

Judgment:  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of PCC on the grounds that Mayo's ability to get along with his co-workers was an essential job function.  However, Mayo's conduct and threats against his supervisor demonstrated that he was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA since he could not perform this essential job function.

The Takeaway:  Note, this decision came down a month or two before the unfortunate workplace shooting incident with the television station in Virginia.  I think the Court's reasoning made sense beforehand, and even more so now, in light of that event.  As the Court noted in its conclusion, while depression and mental illness are serious problems, the ADA does "not require employers to play dice with the lives of their workforce."  

While Mayo did suffer from mental illness, his continued threats against his supervisors meant that he could not perform an essential job function.  This failure not only meant that he was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA but also meant that PCC did not have to accept his accommodation and "cross their fingers and hope that violent threats ring hollow."  This was a case where the Court got it right.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Owens

Date:  July 28, 2015

Opinion:  cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/07/28/13-35643.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more